Cyber Fraud Under The IPC And IT Act
IPC Sections Connected with IT ACT
Defining Cyber Crimes;
Every human thinks that Cyber Crime is only stealing someone’s data. But we defining term we mean Cybercrime as electronic such as computer, laptop etc for stealing someone’s private data or hack their device and harm them. Besides, it is an illegal activity that involves a series of issues ranging from theft to using your system or IP address as a tool for committing a crime.
How Information Technology Act Inculcate Indian Penal Code:
One finds laws that penalize cyber-crimes in several statutes and even in regulations framed by various regulators. The Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) penalize several cyber-crimes and unsurprisingly, there are many provisions in the IPC and the IT Act that overlap with each other.
Parallel Provisions in the IPC and IT Act
Many of the cyber-crimes penalized by the IPC and the IT Act have the same ingredients and even nomenclature. Here are a some of them:
Hacking and Data Theft:
Sections 43 and 66 of the IT Act penalize several activities ranging from hacking into a computer network, data theft, introducing and spreading viruses through computer networks, damaging computers or computer networks or computer programmes, disrupting any computer or computer system or computer network, denying an authorized personnel access to a computer or computer network, damaging or destroying information residing in a computer etc. The maximum punishment for the above offences is imprisonment of up to 3 years or a fine of Rs.5,00,000 or both.
Section 378 of the IPC relating to “theft” of movable property will apply to the theft of any data, online or otherwise, since section 22 of the IPC states that the moveable property include every kind of property except land and things attached to the earth. The maximum punishment for theft under section 378 of the IPC is imprisonment of up to 3 years or a fine or both.
It may be argued that the word “corporeal” which means ‘physical’ or ‘material’ would exclude digital properties from the ambit of the aforesaid section 378 of the IPC. The counter-argument would be that the drafters intended to cover properties of every description, except land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth.
Section 424 of the IPC deals with dishonest or fraudulent removal or concealment of property. This aforementioned section will also apply to data theft. The maximum punishment under section 424 is imprisonment of up to 2 years or a fine or both.
Section 425 of the IPC deals with mischief. Needless to say, damaging computer systems and even denying access to a computer system will fall within section 425 of the IPC. The maximum punishment for mischief as per section 426 of the IPC is imprisonment of up to 3 (three) months or a fine or both.
Receipt of stolen property:
Section 66B of the IT Act prescribes punishment for dishonestly receiving any stolen computer resource or communication device. This section requires that the person receiving the stolen property ought to have done so dishonestly or should have reason to believe that it was stolen property. The punishment for this offence under Section 66B of the IT Act is imprisonment of up to 3 years or a fine of up to Rs.1,00,000 or both.
Similarly Section 411 of the IPC to prescribes punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen property and is worded in a manner that is almost identical to section 66B of the IT Act. The punishment under section 411 of the IPC is imprisonment of either description for a term of up to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.
Identity theft and cheating by personation:
Section 66C of the IT Act deals with punishment for identity theft. In other words, it defines that if any person commits theft by signature, password or any other identification feature shall be punished with imprisonment of either description of a term which may be extended to 3 years and will be liable to fine which may be extended to Rs.1,00,000.
Section 66D of the IT Act prescribes punishment for ‘cheating by personation by using computer resource’ and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 1,00,000
Section 419 of the IPC also prescribes punishment for ‘cheating by impersonation’ and provides that any person who cheats by impersonation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years or with a fine or with both.
The provisions of sections 463, 465 and 468 of the IPC dealing with forgery and “forgery for the purpose of cheating”, may also be applicable in a case of identity theft. Section 468 of the IPC prescribes punishment for forgery for the purpose of cheating and provides a punishment of imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years and also a fine.
The only difference between the punishments prescribed under sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act and section 419 of the IPC is that there is no maximum cap on the fine prescribed under the IPC. However, the punishment under section 468 is much higher in that the imprisonment may extend to 7 years.
21 thoughts on “Cyber Fraud Under The IPC And IT Act”
This is article is fine and the details and the provisions of the mentioned Act is correct but there are many grammatical error and could be written in improved english and introduction portion is also very short, can mention to the point information.
Get to know about various provisions of these two act which is required also to be known.
so i really like how he has perfectly mentioned the provisions of law applicable under different scenarios but the language is vague and it will be hard for an ordinary person to know about it and i also hoped that the IT act and the ipc would be much better linked and written in a manner which is easy to understand since an ordinary individual might not have that much of knowledge to understand the basics.
We all know that the language mentioned in statutes are not easily understandable. The concise and simple language used in the article would be helpful for a layman to be aware of the provisions.
A well written article indeed!
It is a very good article .I get to know details about provision mentioned in IT act 2000 and in ipc also related to cyber fraud
I liked the way a parallel had been drawn between the IPC and IT Act but I do feel that the article could have been more organised.
A really good attempt! And the topic you have chosen is really good. It will be really helpful for laymen who are not known to legal provisions as the concepts you have explained is really simple to understand.
Article is really good! clearly shows the link between two different statutes i.e IT ACT and IPC but there are some grammatical errors otherwise the article is easy to understand even for amateurs.
This article gives a clarity about various provisions of cyber crimes under IT Act 2000 and Indian People Code by which a person can differentiate between specific provisions that he can use against the person who commits cyber crime.
The author has made a good attempt in comparing IT Act, 2000 and IPC, 1860. However, he has failed to inculcate all the aspects in this regard. Some provisions of IT Act are similar to those of IPC but it is quintessential to highlight that there is a difference between the nature of punishment and the nature of offences under both the laws. Furthermore, the author should have highlighted that in case of overlapping of the provisions of both the act, the Special act (lex speacilis) i.e. IT Act will prevail over the general act (lex generlais )i.e. IPC.
It is an amazing article which throws light on overlapping sections of IPC and IT act. This article make it easy to build a bridge between the two acts. But it needs some changes as there are a lot of grammatical errors
It is very good artilce providing us knowlege about IPC section that deals with cyber crimes.
The laws have been explained, however, it is blatant copy pasting. There are several grammatical errors which the author should have checked and corrected before submitting. A case law in such topics is highly recommended. There is no proper introduction, conclusion and no personal touch to this article.
The application of provisions of IPC to cyber crime should have been explained in a better manner. Another thing is that the article lacks examples as well as case laws. Whatever demerits are there but one has to say that the article is an informative one.
Thanks for this article. know about different sections of IPC and IT act.
Honestly it an amazing article stating numerous provisions of IPC and IT act and it’s a kind of connection article between IPC and IT act but there are few grammatical mistakes
Article is really good! clearly shows the link between two different statutes i.e IT ACT and IPC.
I really like this article and this is very informative article and I am very impressed by the contents of the article. I like the way the author has mentioned sections related to his topic and where it is needed but I think that there is a lack of case laws.
A good article which brings out the relationship of IPC with IT act,2000.
Got to know about many IT Act provisions and all above mentioned provisions of IPC are correct. It totally brings out the similarities or overlapping of the IPC,1860 and IT Act, 2000.
The article is well organized and the complete information has been provided by the author. It will be helpful for someone who is doing research under this topic.